SUBHASH AMBLE,BELGAUM KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 BELGUM, BELGAUM KARNATAKA

The Ld. A.O. and CIT/A) has erred in law and on facts in completing the assessment under section 143/3) read with section 147 without appreciating the material placed on record and without granting adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The Ld. CITIA) has further erred in sustaining the additions made by the Ld. A.O. in a mechanical manner without independently examining the reconciliation and documentary evidence submitted, resulting in an erroneous confirmation of additions; 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld.AO in the manner that he did; 4. The Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the assessment as complete on the basis of "available material on record" under section 143(3) read with section 147, despite the appellant furnishing explanations and reconciliation during the proceedings. The order is bad in law as it disregards the appellant's valid submissions. 5. The Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering gross receipts as per Form 26AS instead of the audited books of account and GST returns, without appreciating that TDS in Form 26AS is deducted on a payment basis and includes advances amounting to 21,42,05,063/-, which do not constitute sales of the year. 6. The Ld. A.O. has erred in making an addition of Rs.21,66,26,603/- treating the same as income from other sources solely based on mismatch, without considering the detailed reconciliation uploaded during e-proceedings and without demonstrating any suppression of income. The Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the same. 7. The Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating reimbursement of expenses amounting to 124,21,540/- as sales, despite the appellant explaining that such receipts are not in the nature of turnover and are netted off in the books as per accepted accounting principles and therefore the addition is arbitrary and unsustainable. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appellant's explanation regarding advances, billing variations, and the reconciliation of receipts without assigning cogent reasons and without calling for a remand report or causing any further enquiry, thereby rendering the findings perverse. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.AO/CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the alleged difference is revenue neutral and therefore there is no need for separate addition; 10. The Ld.AO/CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in passing the order against the rule of consistency; 11. Since the subject addition is leading to double taxation, the same is not legally tenable; 12. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in rejecting order for non-prosecution and the same is against the provisions of section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act;

The Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) have erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, which is consequential in nature and deserves to be recomputed after giving appropriate relief. 14. The Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) have erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A, which are premature and not justified once th additions themselves are disputed. 15. The Appellant therefore prays that the additions and disallowances made may kindly be deleted in full and appropriate relief may be granted. 16. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity. (Tax effect Rs. 66,38,357/-) On the basis of the above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), be quashed and relief sought be granted.